The Rogers Act of 1924, often referred to as the Foreign Service Act of 1924, is the legislation that merged the United States diplomatic and consular services into the United States Foreign Service. It defined a personnel system under which the United States Secretary of State is authorized to assign and rotate diplomats abroad. It merged the low-paid high prestige diplomatic service with the higher paid, middle class consul service. The act provided a merit-based career path, with guaranteed rotations and better pay.[1]

Rogers Act
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleAn Act for the reorganization and improvement of the Foreign Service of the United States, and for other purposes.
NicknamesForeign Service Act of 1924
Enacted bythe 68th United States Congress
EffectiveJuly 1, 1924
Public lawPub.L. 68–135
Statutes at Large43 Stat. 140
Titles amended22 U.S.C.: Foreign Relations and Intercourse
U.S.C. sections created22 U.S.C. ch. 52 § 3901 et seq.
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as H.R. 6357 by John Jacob Rogers (RMA) on February 5, 1924
  • Committee consideration by House Foreign Affairs
  • Passed the House on May 1, 1924 (Passed)
  • Passed the Senate on May 15, 1924 (Passed) with amendment
  • House agreed to Senate amendment on May 20, 1924 (Agreed)
  • Signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on May 24, 1924


Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution authorized the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, "Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls." From 1789 to 1924, the diplomatic service, which staffed US legations and embassies, and the consular service, which was primarily responsible for promoting American commerce and assisting distressed American sailors, developed separately.[2]

With small appropriations from Congress, overseas service could not be sustained based on salary alone. Diplomatic and consular service appointments fell on those with the financial means to sustain their work abroad. That and a government-wide practice of political appointments based on nomination, rather than merit, led to careers for those with relations and wealth, rather than skill and knowledge.[3]


Wilbur J. Carr, the chief of the consular bureau, sought to end the political turmoil that affected both the diplomatic and consular services. Working with his colleague Francois Jones, they composed a congressional bill to change the services into one based on a merit system.[4]

Between 1895 and 1905, the bill was continually defeated. Then Secretary of State Elihu Root in 1905, a reformer himself, discovered Mr. Carr as head of the consular bureau. Taking the original ideas, Root worked with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and succeeded in passing a merit-based bill for the consular service in 1906.[4]

Carr began his initial overseas tour in London in 1916. He noted tensions between the diplomatic and consular corps in London and was "shocked to see the staff still wearing top hats and long-tailed coats to work each day". He was further surprised when he heard some of the American diplomatic staff speaking with British accents. He discovered that some of these officers had been living in London for so long they had become almost identical to the British foreign service members with whom they often met and socialized. Carr would later comment that "I have seen some of these young secretaries, who have had exceptional social opportunities and advantages in the capitals abroad, become the most abject followers of the social regime in the foreign capital. One of the things that I hope is going to follow from this bill is to send some of these de-Americanized secretaries to Singapore as vice consul, or to force them out of the service."[5]

With trade becoming an important foreign relations issue in the 1920s, U.S. Representative John Jacob Rogers of Massachusetts sought to complete reforms started by Carr, now Assistant Secretary of State. The bill passed May 24 as the Foreign Service Act of 1924 although it is also called the Rogers Act in honor of the principal author.[3]


  • Merged the diplomatic and consular services into the unified United States Foreign Service
  • Personnel system for assigning diplomats and support personnel
  • Competitive examinations for new personnel
  • Promotion through merit
  • Retirement at age 65, which was later lowered to 60 in 1946[6]

Controversy after passageEdit

After passage of the Rogers Act, the Executive Committee of the Foreign Service Personnel Board drafted a memorandum on avoiding appointment of blacks and women in the new competitive process. Then Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes dismissed such views. The first black candidate to pass the exam in 1925 was Clifton Reginald Wharton, Sr. While he was allowed to serve, his initial treatment appeared to be far from ideal.[citation needed]

See alsoEdit


  1. ^ J. Robert Moskin (2013). American Statecraft: The Story of the U.S. Foreign Service. St. Martin's Press. pp. 339–56. ISBN 9781250037459.
  2. ^ "Frequently Asked Historical Questions". United States Department of State. 2005-02-04. Retrieved 2007-10-19.
  3. ^ a b "World Affairs, Rogers Act, May 24, 1924". Retrieved 2007-10-19.
  4. ^ a b "Consuls, Diplomats". Time Magazine. November 29, 1926. Archived from the original on January 31, 2011.
  5. ^ "A Corps Is Born, How a State Department Insider and A Young Congressman Joined Forces To Create America's Foreign Service". May 1999.[permanent dead link]
  6. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2007-10-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Further readingEdit

  • Roberts, Priscilla. "'All the Right People: The Historiography of the American Foreign Policy Establishment." Journal of American Studies 26#3 (1992): 409–434.
  • Schulzinger, Robert D. The Making of the Diplomatic Mind: The Training Outlook and Style of the United States Foreign Service Officers, 1908-1931
  • Stewart, Irvin. "American Government and Politics: Congress, the Foreign Service, and the Department of State, The American Political Science Review (1930) 24#2 pp. 355–366, doi:10.2307/1946654